Amazon.com

Moral equivocation was a common trait among several of Marlon Brando's characters in the early part of his career, and so it makes good theoretical sense that he would play the role of Fletcher Christian, the tormented first mate aboard the British naval vessel Bounty. But in fact the part is an ill fit for the actor, whose British accent is poor and who never looked quite right in period costume, anyway. Director Lewis Milestone(All Quiet On the Western Front) makes a good-looking and at times (especially during scenes of shipboard cruelties and conflict) compelling movie out of the material, but overall the film just isn't there.--Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (31)

If you don't watch this...you're missing out.
If you want to watch a movie about the infamous Mutiny on the Bounty, and you want to see good acting, beautiful camera work, and hear a witty script -rent this version! Or better, buy it. It's fantastic and amazing... and though people are always putting it down, don't listen to them. Any movie about any type of historical event is going to have a thousand people nitpicking it, but just because they aren't satisfied with it because (good god, his accent isn't perfect! or, that isn't how that scene really happened!!) doesn't mean it isn't a good movie. Brando is, contrary to what everyone else has to say, perfect for the role of Fletcher Christian...and his acting makes the film worth watching.

What's so real about a story based on a historical novel?
This film has been assassinated without any qualms by anti-Hollywood witch hunters. Yes! It does reek of production excesses at the expense of faithfulness to fact and Marlon Brando's portrayal of Mr. Christian is thoroughly derisable but isn't that what is needed here? This second film incarnation of the mutiny's occurrence is a refreshing turn on the theme, this time casting it in a technicolored gold mine of a light. It's pure Gilbert and Sullivan and it is great as a comedy piece. That's what makes this version so enjoyable to watch - it's too light in spirit to do anything else. Even funnier is just knowing that this effect was created unintentionally by MGM studios. After injecting so much into the picture in the way of casting, location and sheer beauty, the film's dark subject matter is parodied throughout, turning what 'should' have been a remake of the 1935 by-the-book yarn into something wonderfully warm and impossible to yawn at. The 1962 'Mutiny on the Bounty' is pure family entertainment, notwithstanding the self-deflating way it might present itself to the thinking, prejudiced mind. Brando is ridiculous with his strained S. English accent and Howard delivers one of his finest performances as Bligh. Indeed, to be fair, it was just such hilarious campness/quirkiness which actually did punctuate the mindset of the Eighteenth Century landed gentry. Who cares about the muting of the story's academics in this work? If you want that so badly then why not get the stodgy Gable/Laughton version or, even better, use the next ten minutes to order the 1932 novel from Amazon while you're here! Don't bleat and bang your fists against this gorgeous White Elephant. It is great stuff which finds other giants of the screen like Richard Harris in fine form (he is the perfect straight man to Brando's foppish officer).You don't even have to switch off your intellect to enjoy all three hours of this picture; your intellect is swift to tell you that there is a very good reason why you are laughing. While the 1935 original and the 1983 version are both true-to-story pieces which are miles more thought-provoking, the '62 epic piece is infinitely more watchable and uplifting. In short, this version was made to be too great for its own good and has imploded in overall feel. A rich texture here is the only thing which can hope to keep the viewer from saying: 'This is so bad, it can't be anything else but good!' As a film buff and holder of two degrees, I still am prepared to risk face and declare this one of my all-time favourites. Sorry, fellow illuminati; sometimes I like to have a laugh.

What was he thinking?
Leaving aside the question of which of the three "Bounties" is the best, the most dominant feature of this version, to me, is Brando's laughable Fletcher C. Yes, a foppish, arrogant English aristocrat will be foppish and arrogant. The problem is you get the idea Brando had never encountered, in real life, anyone to give him the basis to ground his performance in reality. It reveals an underlying flaw in method acting ... you can't make bricks without straw and you can't CONVINCINGLY portray a character of a specific class, time period and type just by making him or her up from within yourself.

Why Not On DVD?
I found this 1962 version of "Mutiny on the Bounty" by far the most entertaining and thought-provoking. Sometimes based upon the real event, yet often dramatized, it is mesmerizing and contains a wonderful script. I must agree with another reviewer who asked where Clark Gable's English accent was in the 1935 "Bounty". Although Brando's English accent certainly could have been better, at least he made an effort to HAVE one in the first place. The film contains humour, pathos and great adventure, also moral questions. It did not deserve the level of criticism it received. It is a shame that it is not available on DVD, because I would purchase it then.

THE BEST VERSION, END OF STORY.
I can understand why movie critics would want us to think that the 1935 Gable/Laughton version of this story is still the definitive one. After all it's their job to try to sound like they know what they're talking about. And I can surely respect anyone else's opinion if they feel the same way. To quote a line from Brando as Fletcher Christian, "It takes all sorts to make a world." But what I cannot take seriously is when critics and even viewers here go so far as to call the 1962 wide-screen Technicolor adventure awful or even laughable. I have seen all three major films inspired by the Bounty incident (there was an earlier pre-CAPTAIN BLOOD Errol Flynn version made in 1933 titled IN THE WAKE OF THE BOUNTY which never saw release here in the U.S.) and so far no one's been able to convince me that the overrated, outdated b&w dream factory creation from 1935 is the best of the bunch. C'mon guys, give me a break here, will ya? Yes, I do believe that some film classics (GONE WITH THE WIND, for example) cannot and SHOULD NOT be remade. Unfortunately for die-hard fans, 1935's MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY is not one of them, and the 1962 version is proof of that. I am not trying to imply in any way that the Gable classic is bad. It did, in all honesty, keep me quite entertained when I saw it, and I may even recommend it to anyone who can't find anything better to watch. But let's get down to business and compare the two versions and see why the Brando film is superior.

First of all, for those who say that Brando's English accent is bad, I have but one question to ask: where the heck is GABLE'S accent?? I think Kevin Costner deserves an apology. And so does Brando. His Fletcher Christian was, at least before the mutiny, a foppish and aristocratic snob, no doubt. But a cheesy performance this was not. How else is a foppish, aristocratic snob supposed to act like? I admit that I'm not sure if that's how the character was originally written for the script or if this was something that Brando came up with during filming. I also confess that I'm no expert when it comes to British accents. But in any case I thought he was completely convincing and definitely more English-like than Gable's all-American interpretation of the same role. But the true realism of Brando's character goes far beyond his attempt at an accent. After the mutiny, the troubling thought of never being able to return to England without the possibility of facing execution causes his Fletcher Christian to regret taking command of the ship, and for a while he shuts himself off from the rest of the crew, trying his best to convince himself that he did the proper and civilized thing. Gable's Fletcher, on the other hand, seems pretty content with his new life as an outlaw.
Second, Trevor Howard's Bligh is also better developed than Charles Laughton's more famous (and over-the-top) version of Bligh. Laughton's Bligh is a monster simply for the sake of being a monster. There is never any kind of explanation for his cruel actions, and it's quite possible that no real crew would have put up with his tyranny as it did in the 1935 film. Howard's Bligh, on the other hand, is a man determined to do ANYTHING he can to accomplish his goal, and that is simply to impress the admiralty who entrusted him with the mission of bringing breadfruit from Tahiti to England. Perhaps he also felt just a little beneath Fletcher Christian?
Third, well I'll make it short 'cause there are actually a few more reasons than just one more. The attempt to round Cape Horn is shot so spectacularly that, at least in my opinion, it would not be equaled until well over forty years later in MASTER AND COMMANDER. The uses of widescreen and Technicolor are also a plus, especially in the above mentioned scene, but also in the scenes depicting Tahitian life as it might have been back then. (I don't know how much of what is shown is accurate and how much is not, but one thing is for sure: Tahiti as seen in the 1935 version is so fake and Hollywoodized it's hard to tell which scenes were shot in a studio and which ones were shot in actual location.) And last but not least, Bronislau Kaper's magnificent score.
Did I forget anything else? No, and I can certainly go on, but I think I've made my point. If you've seen it before and didn't like it the first time, try checking it out again. Who knows, you might think differently this time. Thanx for reading my review. Peace, bro. ... Read more

Reviews (14)

Part Hitchcock, Part James Bond, All Escapist Fun!
Another fab Universal romantic thriller in the grand CHARADE tradition, including some of the same personnel! If director Stanley Donen's classic 1963 comedy-thriller CHARADE is Hitchcock Lite, then ARABESQUE is Hitchcock Lite after taking a few classes in James Bond 101 (including an opening title sequence by Maurice Binder, who also did the honors for CHARADE as well as for most of the Bond movies). As the hieroglyphics expert embroiled in Middle Eastern intrigue while decoding the cipher everyone's after, Gregory Peck's usual woodenness is oddly effective as he tries to deliver Cary Grant-like witticisms (from co-scripter `Pierre Marton,' a.k.a. the late, great CHARADE alumnus Peter Stone). Peck may not be Mr. Glib, but he seems so delighted to get an opportunity to deliver bon mots after all his serious roles that he's downright endearing, like a child trying out new words for the first time. Co-star Sophia Loren, at her most alluring as an Arab femme fatale, can make any guy look suave and sexy! Christopher Challis's dazzling, inventive cinematography won the BAFTA (the British equivalent of the Oscars), and Christian Dior got a BAFTA nomination for Loren's elegant costumes. Suspenseful and sparkling as this twist-filled adventure is, ARABESQUE's biggest mystery is why it's still only available in VHS format. If this gem ever gets deluxe treatment as a DVD (including letterboxing, please!), I sure hope they get Donen to do the kind of entertaining, informative commentary he did with Stone for Criterion's CHARADE DVD -- perhaps they could even get Loren to put in her two cents!

Reading between the lines
"Arabesque" has star appeal, fine chase scenes and a jaunty music score but a rather confusing plot about deciphering a coded message that everyone in the film is trying to get their hands on. Suave Gregory Peck and pretty Sophia Loren pair up to supply the romance while trying to escape from dangerous situations as they flee their pursuers through the streets of London, a zoo and a racetrack. The cipher and an assassination attempt are at the heart of this story and even Peck's Oxford professor can't figure out which side Loren's Yazmin is on as she tells Mr. Pollock one tale after another while they try to rescue an Arabian Prime Minister from grave danger. Sexy Sophia is not believable as a spy but nevertheless is a fine compliment to Peck in this enjoyable spy caper that parallels 1963's "Charade" but is not in the same class as that film.

Son of Charade!
This movie is ALMOST as good as its immediate predecessor with Grant and Hepburn. It's without a doubt Gregory Peck's best comedy, Roman Holiday or no. Stanley Donen again pairs two mega-stars who normally don't make movies together, (though in the case of Grant and Hepburn, they SHOULD have!) and produces good chemistry. Peck has great, clever lines and so does Loren in spots. However, there are a couple of scenes in the movie that keep me from giving it the full five or four star treatment.

This is a Peck, may he rest in peace, that you haven't seen before. His flippant, tossed-off lines suit the situations the writers have put his character in to a tee. He plays a professor reluctantly helping a slimy character, who KIDNAPS him to acquire his services, to decipher a piece of paper with a hieroglyphic inscription on it that a lot of people seem to be after. That hieroglyphic ISN'T exactly what concerns them, though!

Loren and the general intrigue, drag the poor man through being drugged out of his mind on a well-used freeway riding a bicycle, being abducted by yet more shady types, (a short-haired hipster and his gang), and evading armed arabs in a helicopter on horseback. Peck's character, however, dilutes any sympathy he'd get for all this by holding a knife to the exquisite Ms. Loren's throat early in the film! What's even weirder is that Loren SMILES at him after he does it since they were both trying to escape the mansion Loren was being held in. The whole thing was HER idea!

All the while, Peck throws out bon mots like there's no tomorrow, making you wonder why he didn't make more comedies, (Peter O'Toole, George Hamilton and Candice Bergen would make you think the same thing in breakout comedies THEY'VE made!) Loren is absolutely GORGEOUS with those almond eyes, incredible figure, sculpted upper lip, magnificent tan and body by Fisher! She has a couple of great scenes in the movie, one where she tries to distract a Palace Guard in England and another where she's stuck in a shower, nude, where Peck has hidden to avoid being nabbed by her extremely possessive and decadent "keeper" in the beginning of the film.

Though people might argue to the contrary, this film really doesn't resemble "Charade" all that much, except for the fact that two stellar actors are doing a glamorous mystery trifle. The theme involves international intrigue, rather than a murder mystery and you know who Peck is from the beginning. It's actually LOREN who's the iffy one of the two....in the back of the van in the middle of the film, just before Peck goes on the comical bicycle ride on the freeway, it really looks like she's one of the bad guys as she cuddles with the character that first batters then drugs Peck.

Like Charade, however, the O. Henry machine is in overdrive as you never know who's who or what's what, except for Peck. One British government agent even surprises you!

There's a teaser scene, just before the credits run, that has one of the employees of Beshravi, the man keeping Loren, actually dropping ACID in some poor, unsuspecting soul's eyes. This, along with the knife scene with Loren and Peck, are the two scenes that keep me from giving this film a full family recommendation....However, if you have a strong stomach, it's one of the more entertaining 60s spy spoofs and definitely one of the better comedies for both Peck and Loren.

Great Movie
Arabesque is an extremeley entertaining and amusing movie. Peck and Loren are an excellent pair and their relationship kept me laughing throughout most of the movie. If you like spy movies and comedies, or if you just like Gregory Peck this is a movie for you. Anyway, I just liked it so much that I wanted to write a review for it, so I hope this helps.

RACIST YET DECADENT FLICK
Even though I am not Arab (just an advocate of human rights), this sumptous movie would have gotten 5 Stars if it weren't for the offensive and mistaken portrayal of Arabs and Muslims. Especially the name, "Arabesque" must be truly offensive to them ....

OTHER THAN THAT, if you can take this movie lightheartedly, non-judgementally and tongue-in-cheek (although we can't expect Arabs to!) than it is great entertainment with tonz of wit, TONZ of DRAMA!!!, decedant fashion scenes (of Sophia Loren trying on shoes!), and the chemistry between the two is pure romance. Although you wonder how they can ever top what they've been through - adventure-wise!

All in all, WORTH the money. Decadent close-ups of Sophia's make-up and a nice amount of outfit changes. An inspiration to women with inner glamour. ... Read more

Reviews (19)

Has it's moments
I always put off seeing this one because I heard a lot of negative things about it, but it is far better than it is given cradit for. I think this film gets a great deal of slack due to the fact that it followed up the first two Frankenstein films which were just outstanding. This film is certainly not in the same league as those two, but I would say it is the fourth best of the seven Hammer Frankenstein films. one of the major criticisms about this one is the monster's appearance because they switched to using the old Karloff make-up, only cheaper. The make-up does like several layers of old oatmeal, but it is certainly no worse than the make-up used in Horror of Frankenstein and Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell. Peter Cushing puts forth a good performance, some people say his character begins changing in this one, but I don't think that is true. The story does get a little shaky once the hypnotist is brought, but it is still entertaining. Films of Freddie Francis always seemed to have some fine visuals here and there, and this film is no exception. The scene where the body snatcher is carrying the body along the ridge and the scenes of the castle are the stand-outs. This is certainly a step down from the first two, but it still fairly good.

Best Hammer Frankenstein...
For my money, this is the best of the Hammer Frankenstein films. I'm a big Terrence Fisher fan but his Frankenstein don't do much for me personally. They're decent, but his Dracula films are better. Freddie Francis keeps things moving with great sets, wonderful matte paintings and Peter Cushing chewing up the scenery. Hammer films have always been melodramatic and this one is wall to wall with it. One can only hope that Universal will put this on DVD soon.

A GREAT Guilty Pleasure!
As you, or may not know, this was the only Frankenstein film starring Peter Cushing that was not directed by Horror maestro Terence Fisher. Instead the workman-like Freddie Francis steps in for old Terry(who was apprently sick at the time) And delievers a sort of quase-shawshbuckler-mad scientist movie. Not special or in-depth like Fisher's entries, but a fun sleazy gulity pleasure trip. Francis imbues the film with a gritty damp feel, quit unlike the earlier entrys or later ones, contrasted in John Wilcox's flat photogaphy. And Anthony Hinds's poorly scripted screenplay (one of his worst) manages to conjure up some absurd snappy diolouge, that will keep any Bad-cinema buff entertained.

Unfortunetly this guilty treat is not avaiable in it's un-cut format, which consists of scense shot from TV upon it;s original TV airing. Though these cut, or added scenes (which ever you like to term them) can be seen on AMC, whenever they happen to air it.

wha??
i thought freddie francis's Dracula has risen from the grave was the worst hammer film, but it turns out freddy francis's Evil of frankenstein is... the don banks score is the only good thing in it. Oh you think i am being harsh? well everything from the title onwards is ridiculous (its the only frankenstein where cushing ISN'T portrayed as evil). Monster make up terrible, plot inane, and about 20 minutes of flashback reshot by francis instead of just using the footage from the first film (continuity was never a hammer concern at the best of times, but this version is monstrously boring compared to the original).

Why is it that a cinemaphotographer the quality of francis always direct films that look so ugly? i don't understand... only the scene of cushing rexploring his abandoned home has any resonance at all, the rest is just cobbled together from older frankenstein films without anything fresh to add (unlike those later in the series, must be destroyed and monster from hell etc which are far more gruesomely inventive).

the film ends with the monster getting drunk (probably wishing he were out of this horrible film) and in best hammer style the house burns down.

i could go on and on about this dismal film, just avoid it, watch any other hammer frankenstein film (yes, even the horror of frankenstein is better than this drivel) because there are some funny, intelligent and grotesque films out there made by this studio (but not this director).

To be fair to Francis, his darker images found a better outlet in later tyburn films (hammer became tyburn i think?) like the creeping flash and the ghoul, his style was more suited to these 70s horror films rather than the picturesque hammer films of the 50s and 60s. But having said that, he did make a lot of those terrible amicus anthologies too, (particularly silly is the one with a killer piano, can't remember which it is) and who could watch trog? nobody....

Complete mediocrity.
The problem with this Hammer Frankenstein entry is not simply that it uses Universal's aesthetic approach to the myth. The real problem is that Freddie Francis was a professional but erratic director who was generally not terribly inspired. Fisher had a brilliant vision of both Shelley and Stoker's gothic myths. If he had turned his hand to this Universal-Hammer fusion, who knows what the results could have been? Anthony Hinds did not use the pseudonym John Elder because he was ashamed of the screenplay; that was a common practice of his, and he used it in such other superior films as Kiss of the Vampire and the masterly Taste the Blood of Dracula.

Freddie Francis's best film is probably the Robert Bloch-scripted anthology film Torture Garden. His other anthology films should also be checked out. But as far as feature length films are concerned, Francis's work can range from atmospheric but banal (Dracula Has Risen from the Grave) to outright disasters (The Deadly Bees). Pretend that this entry in the series doesn't exist and skip directly to Frankenstein Created Woman.

Oddly enough, the professor who wrote the Cliffs Notes for Shelley's novel gave this film 5 stars in the appendix and referred to it as a masterpiece! This same professor is also strongly critical of Hammer's other Frankenstein films, referring to them as "hysterical" and "exploitative." I've never been able to figure that out. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

It's great!
When elderly spinster Jane Marple (played by Margaret Rutherford) witnesses the death of Mr. Enderby, she realizes that this is no accident. Eavesdropping at the reading of the old man's will, she overhears Aunt Cora state categorically that he was murder, and later Aunt Cora is ruthlessly murdered. There's a murder on the loose, and Miss Marple is determined to find out who it is! [Black and White, released in 1963, with a running time of 1 hour, 22 minutes.]

I must admit that my wife and I chanced across this Miss Marple movie after having become great fans of Joan Hickson's interpretation of the role, and were not too happy with it. Later, however, having accepted that this is not Joan Hickson's Miss Marple, but accepting it for its self, we came to love this movie. Margaret Rutherford brings a real presence to the role, adding a touch of humor, and making the story (based on Agatha Christie's "After the Funeral") quite entertaining.

So, if you like a good mystery, or if you like old movies, then I highly recommend this movie to you. It's great!

Margaret Rutherford is outstanding
I was very excited to find this video! I have been looking for it for over a year.

Although Margaret Rutherford is not the Miss Marple that I envisioned when reading Agatha Christie's books (Joan Hickson is much closer), I find Margaret Rutherford a delightful eccentric. She is lively, independent and forceful! She is my favorite Miss Marple!

Stringer Davis(Mr. Stringer) and Margaret are a wonderful pair. They are a delight! In addition, Robert Morely and Margaret team up for some comedic fun.

I would really like to see the four Margaret Rutherford, Miss Marple films(Murder at the Gallop, Murder She Said, Murder Most Foul, Murder Ahoy) brought out on DVD as a box set. Anyone listening?

Lightweight and Charming
Novelist Agatha Christie occasionally remarked that while she was a great fan of the actress, Dame Margaret Rutherford was NOT the Jane Marple of her novels--for instead of giving us a fluttery and demure woman, Dame Margaret played the role with considerable aplomb and considerable eccentric British humor. Chrisite purists will probably be outraged by Dame Margaret's complete reinterpretation of the character, but there is no denying that she is a great deal of fun to watch.

This particular outing finds Dame Margaret investigating the mysterious death of an elderly man and the subsequent murder of one of his heirs--an investigation which leads her, most improbably, to an inn catering to the horsey set. Although very free in adaptation, the actual plot follows Christie's novel "Funerals Are Fatal" quite closely, and a charming supporting cast--including Flora Robinson--add to the fun. Lightweight and charming.

MARPLE IS PLEASING EVEN THOUGH PLUMP
WHEN I INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED THIS FILM ON TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES, I DIDN'T LIKE MARPLE BEING SO FORCEFUL AND FAT. I HUNG IN THERE, AND BOY WAS I IMPRESSED. I EVENTUALLY ENDED UP CATCHING ALL THE MARPLES STARRING MARGARET RUTHERFORD, ALL 4 OF THEM, ON TCM. MARGARET RUTHERFORD DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB BRINGING THE BRILLIANCE OF MARPLE ALIVE, ALTHOUGH IN A QUITE DIFFERENT WAY THAN JOAN HICKSON DOES IN THE A&E SPONSORED MARPLE SERIES. THIS MARPLE IS DELIGHTFUL, PUSHY, FUNNY AND NOW MY FAVORITE MISS MARPLE ON FILM. THE OTHER FILMS ARE: MURDER MOST FOUL, MURDER AHOY, AND MURDER SHE SAID. CATCH THEM IF YOU ENJOY BRITISH MYSTERY WITH LIGHT COMEDY. ... Read more

Reviews (10)

One of Alec Guinness's best comedic films of the fifties
Although Alec Guinness had already achieved a fair degree of fame on stage and on screen by the time he made THE MAN IN THE WHITE SUIT, this is, in fact, one of his earliest starring roles. Strictly speaking, although he had portrayed eight characters in 1949's KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS, this was his first comedy in which is played the lead. Playing inventor Sidney Stratton, Guinness further cemented his burgeoning reputation as one of England's most interesting and versatile actors.

The film features a marvelous though, to early 21st century film fans, largely unknown cast. Joan Greenwood, who is one of my favorite actresses in the history of film--beautiful, effortlessly sexy and sensual, enormously talented, and possessed of one of the great voices in the history of cinema--plays Guinness's romantic counterfoil. Cecil Parker, who while never a star, seemed to populate dozens of successful films without ever calling attention to himself. The film also features a typical performance by Ernest Thesiger, who played ancient-old-man parts for over forty years in films and is one of the most unique looking actors in British film history.

The story involves a quirky scientist inventing cloth that never gets dirty and never wears out, but which comes out of the lab pure white. This was at a time when a whole range of new synthetic fabrics were hitting the market, so the subject was very topical at the time. The plot revolves around the anticipated effects such material would have on the textile industry. The film is a comedy, but it is the kind of comedy that creates more smiles than laughs. It is not less delightful for that.

What Is Big Business Hiding From Us?
Alec Guinness plays another one of the oddball characters he often played in 1950's British films, this time as an inventor/scientist of a miracle fabric that will not wear out or get dirty. It seems like a great idea to him and to the owner of the factory where he makes it, but then the economic reality of it becomes an issue. What will happen to fabric manufacturers and the clothing industry if clothing doesn't wear out? Will unions let that happen? Trapped in the middle of all this turmoil is Guinness, glowing in his white suit. He delivers yet another terrific performance, and is well supported by so many fine British character actors. The film is well written, although I found the first fifteen minutes or so a little confusing. The premise is great, and it makes you question whether there are a lot of potential products not being invented because of their long term effects on big business, regardless of their usefulness to the general public!

YaDADUMdeeDOODAHaY
I'm not eggsactly sure how to justify my rating or describe this film. It's not exactly a great, touching, or brilliant film. It's a bit dry. The humor is there but only so long as you're the sort of person to laugh at the bleakest of insights, the bitterest of satires, or the most depressing qualities of society. It is as relevant to the present as it is to it's own time. It is entertaining to a degree, if fairly obvious on the surface. Alec Guinness is a good actor and suits The Man in the White Suit perfectly.

This is the sort of film I can admire, enjoy watching once, reflect upon for a little bit afterwards, get depressed and/or happy about what it implies, type off a quick review, and be done with it. It's definately not a 50s romp though comedy like Some Like It Hot, more of an intelligent satire that's more than average in entertaining and a little bit more lighthearted than Sunset Boulevard.

Whiteout
Would anyone really want to live in a perfect world? That momentous question and nothing less is the theme of Alexander Mackendrick's comedy, which despite it's high reputation is still, to my mind, one of the most underrated films in the world's cinema. Mackendrick examines what the human race really means by perfection in this allegory about a semi-mad scientist who seems to invent a perpetually clean, tear-proof cloth. There goes any need for variety in anybody's clothing, ever, and although the textile industry is the setting for the story it doesn't take much imagination to see the director's point in a larger context. Mark Twain used to say that the Christian idea of heaven sounded like hell to him, and we see that same insight brought to visual life here. An impeccable cast, headlined both by the great Alec Guinness and by Joan Greenwood, whose voice was almost as distinctive as Guinness'. As a social comedy I rate it with Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove," and I can think of no higher praise.

Emperor's New Clothes set with socio-economic issues...
The driven Sidney Stratton (Alec Guinness) bounces from job to job as he finds a way to sneak into each textile company's laboratory where he commences his own scientific investigations in regards to a new resistible fabric. This fabric should be able to withstand almost anything and even repel dirt. However, each time he gets close to finding the solution he must escape or is taken for a mad man. Man in the White Suit is an interesting satire as it combines the Emperor's New Clothes with socio-economic issues in a modern setting. This comedy is enhanced through Alec Guinness's character Stratton who is rather eccentric and absentminded as he performs with his usual brilliance, which leaves the audience with a wonderful cinematic experience. ... Read more

Amazon.com

We have met the enemy, and it is us: when a Martian spacecraft with a terrifying link to the origins of humanity is unearthed beneath a London tube station, only the esteemed Professor Bernard Quatermass (a very British--and possibly mad--precursor to Mulder and Scully) can save London's suddenly murderous population from itself. One of the most intelligently paranoid science fiction films ever produced, this pessimistic masterpiece functions as a dark flip side to the relatively optimistic alien-induced evolution theory presented in the later 2001: A Space Odyssey. Nigel Kneale's brilliant script (which posits a surprisingly plausible, otherworldly rationale for the existence of the supernatural) was later appropriated by acknowledged fan John Carpenter for his underrated Prince of Darkness. In addition to boasting a flawless widescreen print, this marvelous tape also features a hilariously overdone original U.S. trailer ("Women will be defiled by the invaders from outer space!" it erroneously shrieks). A must-see for horror and science fiction aficionados. This film is also known as Five Million Years to Earth. --Andrew Wright ... Read more

Reviews (46)

Can't say enough about this exciting sci-fi flick.
This was the first of 7 films that Roy Ward Baker directed for Hammer. I also feel that it was possibly Hammer's finest moment. I have seen this movie at least 5 times and I still love it. This is a remake of a British television series entitled Quatermass and the Pit. The same writer was used on the film and much of the same dialogue is used. And maybe Hammer has some other moments as equally fine as this, but this is such a good movie.

While digging a new subway tunnel underneath London, a large, metallic object is discovered. Different experts are brought in and the official story from the military is that it is an experimental type of bomb from from the Germans from WW II that didn't work. Others aren't so sure, including Professor Quatermass (Andrew Keir).

A little bit of detective work by Professor Quatermass and his assistant Barbara Judd (Barbara Shelley) turns up that the area of London that the object was discovered at, Hobbs Lane, has had a history of strange phenomena going back centuries. In fact the name Hobbs as it turns out, is actually a medieval name for the Devil.

Quatermass proposes that the object is an alien craft that has been buried for centuries, if not millennia, despite the military's insistence that it is a German dud. And soon after the discovery of the object, workers start dying or start having psychotic episodes with visions of seeing aliens that look like insects (kind of like a cross between a praying mantis and a grasshopper actually). The military is trying every tool they can to drill into the object, but to no effect. A cover finally opens up and all hell starts breaking loose around Hobbs Lane. Winds are blowing and people are being driven mad by the visions they are seeing. There is also a giant apparition of an alien that appears in the sky above Hobbs Lane. The Professor figures out a way to bring the power in the spaceship to a halt by running a giant electrified crane into the apparition and save London.

If you have ever seen Lifeforce (1985), you'll notice the endings are somewhat similar. There are winds swirling around London with debris flying everywhere and sirens going off and some terrific noise all around. People are running through the streets either out of their minds or trying to get away from the madness. And one lone figure knows how to put a stop to all of it.

I hope my description of the movie doesn't turn you off, because despite the goofy sounding story it really is a well done movie. All of the principle actors do an outstanding job, especially Barbara Shelley and Andrew Kier. The first time I saw this movie on TV in the late 70's it was under the title 5 Million Years to Earth. It was probably 10 years before I saw the movie again on TV, and I was so excited to be seeing it again. Fortunately for all of us, Anchor Bay has released this movie on dvd in 1998. What is included on the disk is a commentary by director Roy Ward Baker and a World of Hammer episode entitled "Sci-Fi". I have only ever seen one copy in dvd stores and of course I bought it. So I know it is not a very common title to have in stock at most outlets. I highly recommend buying this for your permanent movie collection.

Brother, can you spare a Quatermass?
Quatermass and the Pit (1968) is the third in the Quatermass series, beginning with The Quatermass Xperiment (1955), and followed by Quatermass 2 (1957), all written by Nigel Kneale, and is certainly one of the better Hammer Studios releases. (That's a whole lot of Quatermass...)

The film starts out with an interesting find during the renovation of an underground subway station in the English town of Hobb's End. Seems the workers found some ancient skeletal remains, early primate man it appears, prompting the work to stop, allowing for Dr. Mathew Roney (James Donald), his assistant Barbara Judd (Barbara Shelley, yowsa, yowsa) and a group of anthropologists to catalogue this remarkable discovery. The situation soon turns from fantastic to frightening, as part of a large, metal object is uncovered, leading some to believe it may be an unexploded German bomb from the last world war. Professor Bernard Quatermass (Andrew Kier), a physicist and rocket scientist, along with Colonel Breen (Julian Glover, who later appeared in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade) and the military soon arrive to deal with the situation, but further digging reveals the large object not to be a remnant of a past war. Turns out, it's not even an object of this Earth, as various attempts to penetrate the hull prove fruitless, as the object is of a material not recognizable to anyone. Not only that, but a secret compartment reveals child-sized inhabitants of a bug-like nature. As the scientists, the military, and the government grapple with this incredible find and all its' possible implications, the dissention amongst the parties involved begins, as not only of the origin of the object, and how best to disseminate information to the questioning public.

After Barbara, with the flaming red hair and beckoning green eyes (sorry...I got a little carried away) uncovers information about past odd happenings in the Hobb's End area, Professor Quatermass develops some interesting theories about the possibility of alien intervention in human development and reasons why. This opens a whole new can of worms, and to say Colonel Breen and various high-ranking government officials were less than receptive to these theories is putting it lightly. There position, akin to an ostrich putting its' head in the sand, is that the object and anything within was all a part of some German propaganda during the past war, designed to sow confusion and fear. This turns out not to be true, as everyone learns later. More scientific investigation reveals some truly interesting, and somewhat terrifying details. In the end, the terror becomes a reality, and the stuff really hits the fan as the object turns out to be much more than anyone had expected or could have conceived.

To me, this is an excellent example of a true science fiction film. The story is thick with rich, creamy flavor as elements are revealed, tying in not only with the present, but also the past. The conclusion to the story is satisfying, but one is left with any number of questions that may never be answered, due to the plot intricacies developed through the film. I really liked the portrayal of the powers that be in that they weren't trying to cover up some big secret, but just unwilling to face certain facts for fear that this information would have repercussions beyond the imagination, and most would probably not be able to even begin to wrap their minds around the possibilities presented with the alien object. There is a real depth to this movie, one that keeps drawing you deeper and deeper, heaping implications on top of implications, giving this viewer the sense that his mind was actually being blown. The whole affair was very intelligent and well put together, leading up to a very exciting climax. I would recommend this to any fan of true science fiction, as it exemplifies what can be achieved when all the pieces come together. This would certainly be the career highlight of capable director Roy Ward Baker, who also directed such films as Scars of Dracula (1970), Asylum (1972), And Now the Screaming Starts (1973), and The Monster Club (1980). James Donald (Dr. Mathew Roney) also appeared prominently the classic WWII film The Great Escape (1963). Andrew Kier (Prof. Quatermass) appeared in other Hammer films like Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966), along with costar Barbara Shelley, and also the less than stellar The Viking Queen (1967).

The wide screen print on the disc looks very good, with only very minor signs of wear in a couple of places, and special features, which are on the flipside of the disc, include US and UK theatrical trailers, TV spots, a feature length commentary track by director Roy Ward Baker and writer Nigel Kneale, and a World of Hammer episode entitled 'Sci-Fi'. If you're in the mood for an intelligent and highly entertaining science fiction film, you won't be disappointed in Quatermass and the Pit.

Cookieman108

This third movie is probably the best one to get
I saw this film as a child on television many times and I guess I should admit to some bias here as it had a lasting effect on me.

I bought the movie on the strength of that feeling and it didn't disappoint me to see it again as an adult.
Although I bought all three movies, this is my favourite Quatermass movie because the acting is so much better than the first two films.

Andrew Keir is the best and most sympathetic Quatermass in my opinion and the supporting cast, particularly James Donald (the real hero) and Barbara Shelley help raise the overall quality of the film.
Credit must also go to the author Nigel Kneale who has some terrific ideas and a real feel for science fiction. He also researches his subject well so his stories generally contain 'believable' science( the odd plant man not withstanding).

The way he weaves the old tales of goblins and devil folklore into the story is impressive and original, making the sudden discovery of these creatures less far-fetched and ultimately quite courageous for it's time, considering the heresy at the heart of the story, that we owe our existence and evolution to clever insectoid martians!

The special effects are good considering the lack of technology available at the time and the story kicks along at a cracking pace. Be warned though, you may well be repeating lines in the pub like ....they were leaping and jumping!!! for days afterwards with a bug-eyed expression on your face.

Or is that just me? (I'll get my coat.........)

I would say you if you like science fiction films you won't feel let down if you buy this movie. It's a movie worthy of the title 'classic'and I think stands up pretty well against today's efforts.

WE ARE NOT ALONE
THIS ONE OF THE BEST HAMMER PICTURES,THE STORY IS FILLED WITH SUSPENSE AND GREAT SPECIAL EFFECTS FOR THAT TIME.THE ACTING IS FIRST RATE AND THE END OF MOVIE WILL GIVE UP YOU CHILLS.

EXCELLENT HAMMER SCI-FI THRILLER....
Workers in a London underground railway station unearth humanoid skeletons---setting off excitement among the scientific and anthropological experts. But then a stranger object is found and the military gets involved, believing it to be a bomb. It turns out to be a spacecraft. Col.Breen (Julian Glover) explains it all away as a German craft left over from WWII. Dr.Roney (James Donald) and his assistant Barbara Judd (Barbara Shelley) are skeptical due to the skeletons but the estimable physicist Prof.Quatermass (Andrew Keir) thinks there's a more otherworldly explanation. There are legends and superstitions around the railway station area of hauntings and "goblins" that are too well documented to be ignored. Then strange vibrations begin to eminate from the spacecraft and the remains of the hideous crew are discovered. Breen and his superiors go into complete denial of extraterrestrial visitation while Roney, Barbara and Quatermass bond together to explore things further. And the results are horrifying. Superior Martian lifeforms that resemble giant locusts came to earth in these ships and took back with them ape-like early human beings to mutate with in an attempt to cleanse their own race...then returned with them to earth to repopulate on our planet as Mars was no longer capable of supporting life. Thus, we are descended from this unspeakable union! What's more, this arthropodic race of Martians were evil---capable of creating such powerful telekinetic energy that could create havoc and destroy as well as control the minds of lesser beings. When the ship vibrates to life, sending telekinetic energy every which way, all hell breaks loose. This is an incredible, intelligent sci-fi/horror story with a matchless cast delivering expert performances. A truly superior Hammer film. Excellent color, claustrophobic atmosphere and modest but remarkable special effects with top-notch direction from Roy Ward Baker make this a collector's item for any sci-fi/horror/Hammer fan. Excellent DVD treatment from Anchor Bay as well. Highly recommended all around. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

A weird look at history's most infamous body snatching duo
William Burke and William Hare are history's most infamous body snatchers, and the 1971 film The Horrors of Burke and Hare represents one version of their remarkable story. Unfortunately, the movie is just plain weird in a number of ways, and this takes away from the true horror of the events being chronicled. The year is 1828, and the place is Edinburg, Scotland. Medical schools want corpses, and the supply of dead prisoners just isn't enough to satisfy some university surgeons. Characters such as Dr. Frankenstein and Dr. Herbert West might be willing to dig up dead bodies themselves, but the same cannot be said of the medical elite at illustrious universities. Dr. Robert Knox prefers to buy his cadavers, and he isn't too particular as to where they came from. Enter the evil odd couple of the malevolent, brooding Hare and his smooth-talking, supposedly less fiendish friend Burke. When a lodger in Hare's inn dies, Burke and Hare decide to sell the body, and they earn a whopping good price for him. The prospect of eight pounds per delivery quickly eliminates all of Burke's feigned misgivings. Simply waiting for people to die isn't the way to get rich quick, though, and the pair soon begins "helping along" a few old tramps and destitute women, developing a murder method that leaves no obvious evidence of their handiwork. Once their greedy wives find out where all the men's new money is coming from, they jump into the project with both feet. Burke and Hare eventually become less selective in their choices, thereby attracting attention to themselves (but not before killing 16 people). This movie doesn't follow the post-arrest events, but Burke was hanged while Hare escaped with his life (and basically nothing else) by turning King's evidence.

As far as I am familiar with the true story of Burke and Hare, this film isn't that far off in terms of its presentation. It clearly does portray Burke as a likeable fellow who got sucked into this evil enterprise despite a few moral twinges early on, a bias that I can't buy into completely. Hare, for his part, is as bad as the devil incarnate from the very start. The transformation of Burke into unhappy but willing accomplice to point man of the operation is particularly interesting to watch. Unfortunately, the film also sports a subplot involving a young, naïve medical student and the prostitute he falls in love with. We are presented with a plethora of voyeuristic peeks into the brothel rooms as the lady of the house checks up on her clientele, and the activities we see range from the comical to the ridiculous. Transitioning back and forth between cold-blooded murder and men in costumes chasing half-naked women around a room takes much away from the infamous activities of Burke and Hare themselves. Then there is the music. The centerpiece is a song about Burke and Hare, but it is a jaunting little number that makes you want to tap your feet and swing your arms; frankly, I love the song, but it just doesn't fit the atmosphere of the film. Not only is it played at the opening and ending of the film, it also jumps out for a command performance in the immediate wake of what should be a disturbing murder.

Put all of these strange aspects of the film together and you have one really weird film. It is actually fairly historical in terms of the crimes of Burke and Hare, but I would not consider it anything close to authoritative. I also think the story of these two men is more impressively presented in the 1959 film The Flesh and the Fiends starring Peter Cushing and, in the role of Hare, Donald Pleasance. There is really nothing gruesome about The Horrors of Burke and Hare, but those with an interest in the criminal annals of this body snatching duo will find much to interest (as well as bewilder) them here. ... Read more

Reviews (10)

Joan Fontaine in a superb performance
A classic Hammer chiller, THE WITCHES, which is also known as THE DEVIL'S OWN, is an engrossing story of the occult set in the seeemingly harmless English countryside.

Haunted by the terrors she saw in Africa, schoolteacher Gwen Mayfield (Joan Fontaine) accepts a teaching position in a local Haddaby School run by Alex Bax (Alec McCowan) and his sister Stephanie (Kay Walsh).

Soon, however, as mysterious occurances start, such as a boy falling into a coma, a headless doll found impaled with pins, Gwen starts re-living her African nightmare again.

Very good story, although the climactic witch-coven scene draws more laughs than gasps, with the Witch Queen looking like a cross between Edina from AB FAB and Bullwinkle the Moose.

In deluxe widescreen (aspect ratio of 1.66:1), and original trailers of the film under the DEVIL'S OWN title, and paired with another Hammer film PREHISTORIC WOMEN.

Joan Fontaine and the Coven of the Kooky
In her last appearance on the silver screen, Joan Fontaine, who won an Academy Award for her performance in Suspicion (1941), stars in this Hammer Studios release of The Witches (1967). While the material here is certainly not of the caliber of some of the previous films she's appeared in, it is fun to watch. Maybe I have some lurid fascination of seeing once great stars reduced to appearing in roles they probably would have never considered in their prime.

Joan plays Gwen Mayfield, a teacher who has just been accepted to assume a position as head teacher of a private school in a small English village. The film starts off with Gwen teaching at a mission school in Africa, and, after an incident with a native witch doctor that caused Gwen to have a nervous breakdown, she has now returned to England to put the pieces of her life back together.

After formally meeting with her employers, Alan and Stephanie Bax, played by Alec McCowen and Kay Walsh respectively, the well-to-do resident benefactors of the town who are also brother and sister, Gwen settles into her new surroundings. The situation seems idyllic, a nice, quiet position in a small town where little happens, but, as the saying goes, still waters sometimes run deep. The oddness begins when two of her pre-teen students, a boy and a very weird girl, exhibit closeness to each other, one borne of a budding romance. This causes consternation among some of the townspeople, and soon the boy falls ill of a mysterious coma. Apparently there was more than just a passing concern about what might happen if the relationship between these two continued, specifically in respect to the girl.

Rumors of witchery begin to reach Gwen, and the deeper she probes, the more ominous the proceedings. As the notion of witchery becomes more and more viable, the idea that there may be more than one witch, a coven, operating within the town, involving various members of the small village. Gwen soon finds herself at odds with unseen forces, and suffers a relapse, forcing her to be institutionalized. She has also lost her memory of everything that's transpired after leaving Africa. She does regain her memory, bits at a time, and the horror begins to return as she understands what is about to transpire, and rushes back to the town in an attempt to save the girl from an unknown fate, and ultimately learn that witchery is not limited to third world peoples but is alive and well here in this small, English village.

Joan Fontaine does a great job here, still exhibiting the sheen of a Hollywood star, even if some of that sheen has dulled since her prime. I have to say, even pushing 50 she still looked pretty good, despite the oddish, bowl bouffant she sported through most of the film. Fontaine's older sister, Olivia de Havilland, didn't fare as well, career wise, in my opinion, starring in dubious films like Lady in a Cage (1964), and Irwin Allen 70's disaster pics like Airport '77 (1977) and The Swarm (1978). The creepy factor develops nicely as the film progresses, and as the mystery deepens about who's involved in the coven and what their purpose is, but this is soon replaced by a goofy factor as we see the coven in action, performing a ritual, half-nekkid dance of sorts in a decrepit, abandoned church, eating greasy dirt as their leader spouts incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo while clad in colorful robes and donning a crown with birthday candles adorning the top. I kept waiting for someone to make a wish and blow out the candles, but the others were to busy bumping and grinding to their chanting, and, as I said before, masticating the mud.

Anchor Bay Entertainment releases a great print, in wide screen anamorphic format. Special features include a theatrical trailer, television promotional spots and a World of Hammer episode titled Wicked Women. Also included in the DVD case on the flipside of the card listing the chapter stops is a reproduction of promotional material used for the film. I really find much enjoyment in these little touches, as it seems to indicate thought was actually put into the release, and a sense that one's getting their money's worth, even though this release seems a bit pricey.

Cookieman108

Excellent Hammer movie without Peter Cushing
Joan Fontaine is a teacher who was traumatized by a frightening voodoo ritual while in Africa. Years later, she accepts a job at a small private school and then strange things start to occur.

The DVD is released by Anchor Bay, there is excellent color and the sound is also outstanding. Extras include the original theatrical trailer, two TV spots that advertise the film as a double feature with Prehistoric Women, and the episode "Wicked Women" from the World of Hammer series.

It's always the quiet chills that "get" you!
Lucky me--I'm both a big fan of Joan Fontaine and Hammer Films, so "The Witches" is heaven-sent! I'd read about this movie years ago and have even caught snippets of it over the decades, but nothing prepared me for Anchor Bay's excellent DVD release! Crisp, clean, with deluxe packaging and interesting "extras," The Witches is a quality product all the way. Ms. Fontaine--whose screen persona ranged from innocent and shy (see Hitchcock's "Rebecca" and "Suspicion") to connivingly evil ("Born to Be Bad")--gives a low-key and totally convincing performance as "Gwen Mayfield," ex-missionionary teacher. Her new assignment, acting as headmistress to a private church school in quiet Heddaby (Cornish England) would seem to be an ideal move, considering her traumatic turn at the hands of African witchdoctors (shown in an exciting prologue). But what's this? There are strange "undercurrents" in Heddaby! Drownings, headless voodoo dolls, a burned-out church, and "the mangle!" Could it be? Is there actually (gasp)witchcraft afoot? Well, needless to say, with a movie called "The Witches," you can draw your own conclusions! It's interesting to see Fontaine at work--she lacks the bombast of, say, a Bette Davis or Joan Crawford. Instead, she handles her duties as Hammer horror heroine with great subtlety and panache. Watch for British film vet Kay Walsh, who practically steals the film--she's excellent! "The Witches" gets my highest recommendation!

Good Brit Witchcraft Film
Interesting story of African withcraft in Britain. Some suprising moments make the movie interesting. ... Read more

Reviews (16)

Vintage Hammer. Babes, severed heads AND Peter Cushing!
The fist time I saw this movie, at the tender age of 10, it left a lasting impression that has no doubt skewed my view of the world. Here was a former Playboy Bunny trying desperately to contain herself in a typical Hammeresque period costume, running around the Village exacting revenge in a series of bloody murders. The grisly climax contains a scene where she talks to the severed head of her (former) boyfriend. She was, of course, Frankenstein's newest creation. I recently watched this again, curious as to how I would react 30 years later. Aside from a terrible ending (this movie doesn't end so much as it stops), the movie still holds up pretty well. Fans of the Hammer genre, and fans of Peter Cushing will no doubt enjoy this one. Good wacky laboratory sequences, a fun cast of characters (some of which you are glad to see die) and Denberg as the best looking creature yet.

Will the real Soul please stand up
At the beginning of the movie a murderer is guillotine and witnessed by his young son Hans. Years later Hans is working with Dr. Hertz and Dr. Bon Frankenstein (played by Peter Cushing). Frankenstein has himself frozen for exactly one hour, down to the second, where he is trying to prove that the soul does not leave the body. He is revived and to celebrate his success sends Hans out to get some champagne at one of the local pubs. Hans is in love with the owner's daughter (Christina played by Susan Denberg) and spends the night with her but when the owner is killed Hans is accused and refuses to tell where he was when the murder took place. Hans is found guilty and himself guillotined like his father. Christina sees this and jumps off a bridge and drowns.

Dr. Frankenstein retrieves Hans's body, captures his soul, and places it in Christina body. Among Frankenstein accomplishments he is a brilliant cosmetic surgeon and turns Christina into a beautiful blond with the aid of Dr. Hertz. Now with a new body and Hans's soul revenge is sought for Hans and Christina's father's deaths.

This is another excellent Hammer film and with Peter Cushing heading the cast. The quality of the DVD is excellent.

WARNING
this Anchor Bay DVD appears to have serious flaws as almost all of the originally pressed discs no longer play correctly.....those of you who have these discs, Please check them in your dvd players as 9 out of 10 of them have suffered a form of corruption that doesnt allow them to work anylonger...........the worst news of all is that ANCHOR BAY dont apparently have the license to release this title again at the moment, so those of us who have dumped our Elite Laserdiscs are rather stuck with a dud dvd. Anchor Bay who are normally so excellent about handling themselves ought really to start something about refunding those of us who are stuck with a dud disc - clearly something they MUST have had some idea about.

stylish, erotic, smart- all my favorites!!!
I saw this many, many years ago in the theatre... still a great movie, but the tape didn't exactly capture the lush backgrounds, the erotism of the first time. Well, I'm also not 6 (or whatever) years old.
Still, I experienced again: a delirious crush on Hans, the romantic, too-good-to-be-true, hero- who was able to love AND LUST after Christine, the flawed and mistreated servant girl (haven't we all been her at one time?)His ability to see past the scars she felt such shame from made him a big numero uno for me even way back then.
Second: yowza! I prayed that my pre-adolescent self would develop into ANY SEMBLANCE WHAT-SO-EVER of the oozing sexuality of the transformed/re-created (isn't that another wish of ours, ladies?) Christina (Susan Denberg)...
And, oh yeah... Peter Cushing is in it, too.
HA! Just kidding...the blend of old school, classic horror and repressed sexuality made for a memorable movie that I had to buy and watch again and again.
If you dig the mix... and you know who you are out there... get this movie

Will the real Hammer Frankenstein please stand up?
Hammer's Victor Frankenstein owes little to the Universal series (where the character was named Henry and in fact the sequels featured the monster and not the Doctor) or even the original novel (whose Victor was a young college student and not a Baron).
When one follows the Baron in the Hammer series, one finds a lot of inconsistency. The insensitive, murderous Baron of CURSE is toned down a bit in REVENGE, misunderstood in EVIL, is the "hero" of CREATED WOMAN, is a killer and more evil than ever (and just transplants a brain) in MUST BE DESTROYED, and is back more or less like the Baron in REVENGE in AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL. Cushing is a wonderful actor and makes the character interesting, in spite of the scripting.
One wonders how the Baron came upon the idea to transplant souls since he seems to be an atheist or how he is able to acquire the machinery to be able to accomplish it without arousing suspicion. FRANKENSTEIN CREATED WOMAN is a pretty good film overall, but the ending does seem weak. One gets the feeling they couldn't think up a more satisfying ending and just had her drown herself again. Hammer fans will probably enjoy it anyway. Others should look for a more traditional Frankenstein movie. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

this movie is slightly worse than rollerball
on a scale of one too one million with one million being the best this movie was aproximately a -10000.597. The acting in porn movies is alot better than the acting in this movie.a low budget porn film.If i had the choice of seing this movie and watching midgets play monopoly id watch the midgets.The only reason for anyone to watch this movie is to see dirk's nice package.:-->

*Kissing Dirk Bogard*
Nope, he never got to kiss the girl. And the movie wasn't in color, either. Didn't have to be. This is THE BEST, most beautiful version ever made of the finest tale of heroism ever told. A 5 (out of five) Kleenexes rating for A Tale of Two Cities, starring Dirk Bogard!! Don't confuse it with any other version of this movie. No man alive played the indolent wastrel, Sidney, with the intensity that Dirk did. A unique performance! The others were great too.

You watchers of TITANIC (it was OK), get a real movie, will you?

"It is a far, far better thing I do, than I have done before. It is a better rest I go to...than I have ever had."

Beat that for unforgettable if you can. Hand me another Kleenex. ... Read more

Reviews (31)

If you don't watch this...you're missing out.
If you want to watch a movie about the infamous Mutiny on the Bounty, and you want to see good acting, beautiful camera work, and hear a witty script -rent this version! Or better, buy it. It's fantastic and amazing... and though people are always putting it down, don't listen to them. Any movie about any type of historical event is going to have a thousand people nitpicking it, but just because they aren't satisfied with it because (good god, his accent isn't perfect! or, that isn't how that scene really happened!!) doesn't mean it isn't a good movie. Brando is, contrary to what everyone else has to say, perfect for the role of Fletcher Christian...and his acting makes the film worth watching.

What's so real about a story based on a historical novel?
This film has been assassinated without any qualms by anti-Hollywood witch hunters. Yes! It does reek of production excesses at the expense of faithfulness to fact and Marlon Brando's portrayal of Mr. Christian is thoroughly derisable but isn't that what is needed here? This second film incarnation of the mutiny's occurrence is a refreshing turn on the theme, this time casting it in a technicolored gold mine of a light. It's pure Gilbert and Sullivan and it is great as a comedy piece. That's what makes this version so enjoyable to watch - it's too light in spirit to do anything else. Even funnier is just knowing that this effect was created unintentionally by MGM studios. After injecting so much into the picture in the way of casting, location and sheer beauty, the film's dark subject matter is parodied throughout, turning what 'should' have been a remake of the 1935 by-the-book yarn into something wonderfully warm and impossible to yawn at. The 1962 'Mutiny on the Bounty' is pure family entertainment, notwithstanding the self-deflating way it might present itself to the thinking, prejudiced mind. Brando is ridiculous with his strained S. English accent and Howard delivers one of his finest performances as Bligh. Indeed, to be fair, it was just such hilarious campness/quirkiness which actually did punctuate the mindset of the Eighteenth Century landed gentry. Who cares about the muting of the story's academics in this work? If you want that so badly then why not get the stodgy Gable/Laughton version or, even better, use the next ten minutes to order the 1932 novel from Amazon while you're here! Don't bleat and bang your fists against this gorgeous White Elephant. It is great stuff which finds other giants of the screen like Richard Harris in fine form (he is the perfect straight man to Brando's foppish officer).You don't even have to switch off your intellect to enjoy all three hours of this picture; your intellect is swift to tell you that there is a very good reason why you are laughing. While the 1935 original and the 1983 version are both true-to-story pieces which are miles more thought-provoking, the '62 epic piece is infinitely more watchable and uplifting. In short, this version was made to be too great for its own good and has imploded in overall feel. A rich texture here is the only thing which can hope to keep the viewer from saying: 'This is so bad, it can't be anything else but good!' As a film buff and holder of two degrees, I still am prepared to risk face and declare this one of my all-time favourites. Sorry, fellow illuminati; sometimes I like to have a laugh.

What was he thinking?
Leaving aside the question of which of the three "Bounties" is the best, the most dominant feature of this version, to me, is Brando's laughable Fletcher C. Yes, a foppish, arrogant English aristocrat will be foppish and arrogant. The problem is you get the idea Brando had never encountered, in real life, anyone to give him the basis to ground his performance in reality. It reveals an underlying flaw in method acting ... you can't make bricks without straw and you can't CONVINCINGLY portray a character of a specific class, time period and type just by making him or her up from within yourself.

Why Not On DVD?
I found this 1962 version of "Mutiny on the Bounty" by far the most entertaining and thought-provoking. Sometimes based upon the real event, yet often dramatized, it is mesmerizing and contains a wonderful script. I must agree with another reviewer who asked where Clark Gable's English accent was in the 1935 "Bounty". Although Brando's English accent certainly could have been better, at least he made an effort to HAVE one in the first place. The film contains humour, pathos and great adventure, also moral questions. It did not deserve the level of criticism it received. It is a shame that it is not available on DVD, because I would purchase it then.

THE BEST VERSION, END OF STORY.
I can understand why movie critics would want us to think that the 1935 Gable/Laughton version of this story is still the definitive one. After all it's their job to try to sound like they know what they're talking about. And I can surely respect anyone else's opinion if they feel the same way. To quote a line from Brando as Fletcher Christian, "It takes all sorts to make a world." But what I cannot take seriously is when critics and even viewers here go so far as to call the 1962 wide-screen Technicolor adventure awful or even laughable. I have seen all three major films inspired by the Bounty incident (there was an earlier pre-CAPTAIN BLOOD Errol Flynn version made in 1933 titled IN THE WAKE OF THE BOUNTY which never saw release here in the U.S.) and so far no one's been able to convince me that the overrated, outdated b&w dream factory creation from 1935 is the best of the bunch. C'mon guys, give me a break here, will ya? Yes, I do believe that some film classics (GONE WITH THE WIND, for example) cannot and SHOULD NOT be remade. Unfortunately for die-hard fans, 1935's MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY is not one of them, and the 1962 version is proof of that. I am not trying to imply in any way that the Gable classic is bad. It did, in all honesty, keep me quite entertained when I saw it, and I may even recommend it to anyone who can't find anything better to watch. But let's get down to business and compare the two versions and see why the Brando film is superior.

First of all, for those who say that Brando's English accent is bad, I have but one question to ask: where the heck is GABLE'S accent?? I think Kevin Costner deserves an apology. And so does Brando. His Fletcher Christian was, at least before the mutiny, a foppish and aristocratic snob, no doubt. But a cheesy performance this was not. How else is a foppish, aristocratic snob supposed to act like? I admit that I'm not sure if that's how the character was originally written for the script or if this was something that Brando came up with during filming. I also confess that I'm no expert when it comes to British accents. But in any case I thought he was completely convincing and definitely more English-like than Gable's all-American interpretation of the same role. But the true realism of Brando's character goes far beyond his attempt at an accent. After the mutiny, the troubling thought of never being able to return to England without the possibility of facing execution causes his Fletcher Christian to regret taking command of the ship, and for a while he shuts himself off from the rest of the crew, trying his best to convince himself that he did the proper and civilized thing. Gable's Fletcher, on the other hand, seems pretty content with his new life as an outlaw.
Second, Trevor Howard's Bligh is also better developed than Charles Laughton's more famous (and over-the-top) version of Bligh. Laughton's Bligh is a monster simply for the sake of being a monster. There is never any kind of explanation for his cruel actions, and it's quite possible that no real crew would have put up with his tyranny as it did in the 1935 film. Howard's Bligh, on the other hand, is a man determined to do ANYTHING he can to accomplish his goal, and that is simply to impress the admiralty who entrusted him with the mission of bringing breadfruit from Tahiti to England. Perhaps he also felt just a little beneath Fletcher Christian?
Third, well I'll make it short 'cause there are actually a few more reasons than just one more. The attempt to round Cape Horn is shot so spectacularly that, at least in my opinion, it would not be equaled until well over forty years later in MASTER AND COMMANDER. The uses of widescreen and Technicolor are also a plus, especially in the above mentioned scene, but also in the scenes depicting Tahitian life as it might have been back then. (I don't know how much of what is shown is accurate and how much is not, but one thing is for sure: Tahiti as seen in the 1935 version is so fake and Hollywoodized it's hard to tell which scenes were shot in a studio and which ones were shot in actual location.) And last but not least, Bronislau Kaper's magnificent score.
Did I forget anything else? No, and I can certainly go on, but I think I've made my point. If you've seen it before and didn't like it the first time, try checking it out again. Who knows, you might think differently this time. Thanx for reading my review. Peace, bro. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

This was the most depressing movie I've ever seen!
I first saw this movie when I was about 40 years old. Thankfully, I was watching it alone because I cried so hard at the end. Whenever I tell someone about the movie, it was so SAD that I could start crying just explaining what the movie was about. It was really good until the end and the ending was so disturbing, I would never watch it again!

a surprising little gem
Its odd how the most underated films can really surprise you. I saw this film for the first time recently, and I regret now not seeing it as a child, I had put off seeing it for such a long time. I did not expect to get too involved about the welfare of a few pit ponies; but honestly the film; inc story; performances and attention to detail are so well done that it almost has a timeless quality about it. Modest as it is; be warned the happy ending only comes with a rather surprising price unexpected for disney in the 70s. Rosemary Anne Sisson,wrote the screenplay also penned 'Ride a Wild Pony' for disney which came out around the same time; also recommended as a companion to this film, hopefully one day that film will be released as well.

A great pit pony film
This film was filmed entirely in the forbidding Yorkshire moors. It tells the story about the small working ponies that have spent their entire lives down in the coal mines and are about to be sold to the slaughterhouse. Although many famous faces appear, the real star of the show must surely be Flash the pit pony. Wrinkles

"Vintage" Disney Classic
This is the sort of quality family fare that will rarely, if ever, be made again. Produced in the mid 70's when 'The Waltons' was popular and America wasn't so afflicted with Attention Deficit Disorder, it earns its place as one of the best in Disney's period piece library. The cinematography is excellent with many colorful landscape panoramas and some choice episodes including a dog racing event in the Yorkshire countryside, visually interesting shots of old-fangled colliery machinery, worklife inside the coal mines, and an honest rendering of family life inside the village homes.

The characters of the story are all cast with competent actors, both child and adult. The films' action derives from the resourceful efforts of the kids to save the colliery ponies whose fate is a grim one in the face of production efficiencies soon to be installed by mine owner Alastair Sim-(played Scrooge in 'A Christmas Carol') The film has an innocent charm, although a little dated in both the period of history it covers and its storyline and humor. Even so its charm and quiet drama build to a surprisingly effective climax. There's a sense you've been treated to a unique glimpse of the past with a wide array of period detail providing rich realism. Anyone with patient appreciation for the concerns of children and an interest in the historic difficulties posed by economic/industrial evolution will find a gem in this film. Kids not addicted to video games may also find it enjoyable. Thanks Anchor Bay for a very good transfer to DVD.

Pit ponies
This movie was filmed in and around my 77 year old mother's home town of Doncaster, England. Her father was a miner until a mine collapse in the 30's left him permanently disabled. She saw this movie MANY years ago on TV & has been looking for a copy since. She and her sisters used to watch the ponies going down and coming out of the mines. It's a beautiful movie & brings back wonderful memories. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

This was the most depressing movie I've ever seen!
I first saw this movie when I was about 40 years old. Thankfully, I was watching it alone because I cried so hard at the end. Whenever I tell someone about the movie, it was so SAD that I could start crying just explaining what the movie was about. It was really good until the end and the ending was so disturbing, I would never watch it again!

a surprising little gem
Its odd how the most underated films can really surprise you. I saw this film for the first time recently, and I regret now not seeing it as a child, I had put off seeing it for such a long time. I did not expect to get too involved about the welfare of a few pit ponies; but honestly the film; inc story; performances and attention to detail are so well done that it almost has a timeless quality about it. Modest as it is; be warned the happy ending only comes with a rather surprising price unexpected for disney in the 70s. Rosemary Anne Sisson,wrote the screenplay also penned 'Ride a Wild Pony' for disney which came out around the same time; also recommended as a companion to this film, hopefully one day that film will be released as well.

A great pit pony film
This film was filmed entirely in the forbidding Yorkshire moors. It tells the story about the small working ponies that have spent their entire lives down in the coal mines and are about to be sold to the slaughterhouse. Although many famous faces appear, the real star of the show must surely be Flash the pit pony. Wrinkles

"Vintage" Disney Classic
This is the sort of quality family fare that will rarely, if ever, be made again. Produced in the mid 70's when 'The Waltons' was popular and America wasn't so afflicted with Attention Deficit Disorder, it earns its place as one of the best in Disney's period piece library. The cinematography is excellent with many colorful landscape panoramas and some choice episodes including a dog racing event in the Yorkshire countryside, visually interesting shots of old-fangled colliery machinery, worklife inside the coal mines, and an honest rendering of family life inside the village homes.

The characters of the story are all cast with competent actors, both child and adult. The films' action derives from the resourceful efforts of the kids to save the colliery ponies whose fate is a grim one in the face of production efficiencies soon to be installed by mine owner Alastair Sim-(played Scrooge in 'A Christmas Carol') The film has an innocent charm, although a little dated in both the period of history it covers and its storyline and humor. Even so its charm and quiet drama build to a surprisingly effective climax. There's a sense you've been treated to a unique glimpse of the past with a wide array of period detail providing rich realism. Anyone with patient appreciation for the concerns of children and an interest in the historic difficulties posed by economic/industrial evolution will find a gem in this film. Kids not addicte